Why can some people not accept that other people make choices that they don't necessarily approve of? Why do we have to assume that half the software developers SHOULD be women? Why can't we simply let people make the choices that make the most sense to them and their own interests? It's insane to pretend that it's a problem when an industry has a gender disparity. As long as everyone has the ability to choose a field if he wants it, that's all that matters. After that point, you're trying to force people into making decisions that you think they ought to make. It's just another form of idiotic social engineering. Just let individuals decide what's best for themselves.

You truly ARE a moron. This conversation has NOTHING to do with any of his views on anything else. Are you too stupid to understand that? I'm objecting to this site posting a political attack and trying to somehow, someway make it appear what he did wasn't a filibuster. I don't care how stupid you are. I don't care how much you hate Paul. I commented on one narrow issue, but you're too filled with hatred to care about accuracy or fairness on the one issue on the table. You're disgusting.

Whether you like Rand Paul or not, it was a filibuster. Putting quotes around it like that is a cheap shot designed to attack someone you don't like. It's factually inaccurate and it makes the item nothing but a hit piece on Paul.

It's nice to hear that Win10 runs well on a MacBook, but it's pure clickbait to claim that it "runs better" than does OS X. The measure being used is completely subjective. Microsoft and Apple might be optimizing for entirely different things. Without far more objective tests, we simply have no idea. It's silly to claim to have an objective answer based on this observation. Even the writer's claim that Win 10 runs at 60 fps turns out to be made up, because he admits that it simply looks that way and he hasn't found a way to test it. In other words, this is purely subjective AND this subjective observation about one thing says nothing about how either operating system performs overall. He can reasonably say that he installed Win 10 on the MacBook and he liked the way it performed. He can't reasonably compare the performance of the two operating systems, at least not based on anything he said here. Windows may be better by some objective measures. We just can't tell that from anything here.

It's hilarious to GPL advocates pretend their license is about freedom, because it's not. The GPL is about forcing other people to do things with code that the writers of the license want. If you simply want people to have the freedom to do whatever they want to do with code, you'll support something less restrictive (BSD license, for instance) or just support code being released into the public domain. That would allow people to do whatever they wanted with the code. The GPL exists to control what people can do with code. If you're into control — for financial reasons or ideological reasons —you're free to use a license that supports your agenda. But it's dishonest to pretend the GPL is about freedom. It's about controlling what people can do with software. The irony and hypocrisy are easy to see.

You act as though being fair and reasonable quit mattering if previous stories have been unfair and unreasonable, but that's not true. To pretend this is an Apple story is ultimately dishonest because of its implication. That's worth continuing to point out until people quit being dishonest.

Foxconn's major customers in the recent past have been Acer, Amazon, Apple, BlackBerry, Cisco, Dell, Google, Hewlett-Packard, Microsoft, Motorola Mobility, Nintendo, Nokia, Sony, Toshiba, Vizio. So why do people make Foxconn stories about Apple? It's pure ignorance and seems to come from a desire to attack the company which is recently most successful. It's really stupid.

I don't have any opinion about this phone — although I've long wondered why they were bothering — but I have to question the technical savvy of a reviewer who refers to a "5-megapixel lens." A sensor is rated in megapixels, but a lens is not.

It's hilarious that the summary of this story uncritically accepts that the origin of taxi medallions was about "public safety." This is a lie and it's always been a lie. The system was about limiting competition. Pure and simple. The people in the industry want fewer people competing, because there's more profit for them. They made friends with the right politicians, who then introduced the system and controlled how the industry was "regulated." I put that word in quotes because it wasn't regulated in the sense that people believe. It was regulated to avoid competitors hurting incumbents operators. This is the way pretty much all regulation really works. (Look up "regulatory capture" if you're interested in how it works.) There is no legitimate reason to control the number of taxis. Period. I don't even see a valid reason to license them, but if it were about safety, licenses would be available to anyone who could meet certain safety and insurance requirements. I don't have much sympathy for the owners of the current medallions. They've had a government-granted license to print money, which is why these medallions have had value. It's time to let the market take over. The medallion system needs to die.

I spent 20 years as a political consultant, so I have a strong understanding of what it takes to win elections. Although Lawrence Lessig is a smart guy, he makes the mistake that's common to many other smart people. He assumes his intelligence and knowledge about one field should make conquering another field simple and easy. He's wrong in his diagnosis of the problem with U.S. politics and he's even more laughably wrong about how change happens. It's amazingly arrogant for him to believe that his tiny effort would make the slightest difference in what voters believe about the issue he cares about. He and his group are like tiny fish bumping against the side of a supertanker and wondering why they're not changing its course. He needs to stick to something he's at least somewhat qualified to deal with. He doesn't understand politics.

Google has become so successful from its advertising business that it casually throws around money on goofy projects which either don't work or just peter out. This is presumably an example of one of those. Having plenty of profits is a good thing, but it also causes a company to completely lose focus and leads to the hubris that Google exhibits — that of believing it can do anything and everything. I know that a lot of techie fans of Google don't want to hear this, but Google's lack of focus is going to come back to bite it. Those "cool" projects that geeks tend to like are going to be on the chopping block once there's finally a disruption to Google's advertising business. (And that day will come.)

It seems to me that current wearable products are a case of technology looking for a problem to solve. There's nothing they do that matters to me that my iPhone can't do better, and the idea that it's a burden to pull my watch out of my pocket seems laughable to me. The Android Wear products are vaguely interesting as technology demonstrations, but I see nothing that they DO that I need done —and I don't want to wear a device on my arm and charge yet another device, too. It's theoretically possible that someone will release a new product that does something that I'm not even conceiving on, in which case I'll re-evaluate my opinion. But right now I can't see anything interesting about them. If Apple releases anything even vaguely similar (in function or anything else) to what the Android companies have been releasing, I'll have zero interest in it. I need products that solve real problems that I have. Nothing about what I see so far even attempts to address anything that I consider a problem to be solved.

While I don't want an "everything including the kitchen sink" app, the idea that functions should be broken into separate apps seems like an odd (and insane) fad to me. If the functions are related, they belong in the same app. If they're not related, why were they ever designed into the same app? For instance, in Facebook, the messaging app is for messaging people I'm connected to on Facebook. I don't want it for anything else and I'm not going to make that messaging system into my primary messaging system. It will ONLY be for communication with people I don't know well enough to be connected by email. It just seems as though folks in Silicon Valley talk to each other and somebody came up with the idea that functions should be different apps, so many companies are doing it with no rational reason behind it.